Tuesday, March 10, 2015


Why do American states elect someone like this?

It would be easy to think what a yahoo-- Harvard degree or not. What a disgusting human being who loves war so much he is eager for another (on the cuff, of course as he also doesn't believe in taxes), but who elected this guy? Who are the Americans who wanted someone like this to serve in the Senate? Half this country is going way off the deep end with a desire for endless wars and ignoring any of their own elected government, with which they don't agree. Democracy??? What the hell is that!!!! Nothing to them. It's all about doing what they want when they want it and if the vote does not go their way, if they don't like the laws, scuttle them.

I try to think positive. Sometimes it's hard, but this guy, he's really something and he just led the United States Senate, many much older and more seasoned than he, to actually break a long held law, the Logan Act, one that calls what he did treason.  
“Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”
 Basically we only do what we believe is right. To hell with a democratic vote. To hell with facts in any situation. We will undermine anything we don't like-- next President, even if it turned out to be a Republican, better watch out as this is all about law of the mob-- possibly led by the cutest and most radical guy/gal.

This reminds me when the yahoos armed themselves with their assault rifles and came from around the country to Nevada to help a rancher there stand off the federal government. Why did he need to stand off the government? Because he was unwilling to pay for leasing the land his livestock was using. Everybody else who uses rangeland pays the fees. It'd be like saying I want to rent a house that you own, but I won't pay you for the rent but someone who suits me better. Government land is owned by all of us, and it's to whom we pay the fees if we use it for camping or logging or putting our cattle on it.

Cotton fits with this crowd and that mentality. He's a tea party firebrand. Why Arkansans wanted him is maybe because he's handsome or he was in the wars Bush originated and that the right is still trying to justify (never by paying for them though with increased taxes). Some are cheering him today even though what he's trying to start would dismantle elected government for any power. I am guessing the voters responsible for this jerk want the government dismantled (other than the military, of course). These voters don't believe in democracy. They also believe in their own right to decide which laws they obey. 

This mentality is how Cotton thinks he's justified to try to scuttle a peace deal that he doesn't even know what it is. He is doing this to gain fame-- and he did. I am sure the right adores him right now. I won't be listening to Limbaugh today but he's doubtlessly salivating over this guy. Who (other than military contractors) knew anything about him before he decided to override our elected system of government (Obama was elected by millions more votes)? 

I am never shocked by a young idiot. But, more seasoned heads signed that letter. I can only ask why. Do they hate Obama so much that they would dismantle this nation? Do they want to rewrite all laws to suit themselves? Heaven help us if they get a President with that mentality. I can not begin to imagine how many wars he'll be engaging in while he continues to add to the debt. 

If there is no peace deal with Iran. If they continue to get a nuclear bomb to even themselves up with Pakistan and Israel, if the whole region explodes in war, does that profit men like this Cotton? So it would seem they at least believe. If he figures it out otherwise, it might be too late for the damage he has done. 

We had been warned about this by no less than Dwight D. Eisenhower-- a man who knew a bit about war himself. He believed in a strong military, but he said something about the risks going along with it.
   "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades."
This is where we are today when the more experienced heads in the Senate let this radical, with two months under his belt, get a mob action going that would undermine even Republican presidents if the left follows suit when they have a President who doesn't suit them.

Many Americans have congratulated themselves on electing those who don't respect the rule of law. Some of this has happened, not because there are so many who dislike government but because more than half our voters don't want to be informed and don't bother to vote. It's hard to say where this is heading, but it can't be good.

No comments: